Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 9/2005

01-09-2005 | Original Article

Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner

Authors: D. Visvikis, D. Griffiths, D. C. Costa, J. Bomanji, P. J. Ell

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 9/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Three-dimensional positron emission tomography (3D PET) results in higher system sensitivity, with an associated increase in the detection of scatter and random coincidences. The objective of this work was to compare, from a clinical perspective, 3D and two-dimensional (2D) acquisitions in terms of whole-body (WB) PET image quality with a dedicated BGO PET system.

Methods

2D and 3D WB emission acquisitions were carried out in 70 patients. Variable acquisition parameters in terms of time of emission acquisition per axial field of view (aFOV) and slice overlap between sequential aFOVs were used during the 3D acquisitions. 3D and 2D images were reconstructed using FORE+WLS and OSEM respectively. Scatter correction was performed by convolution subtraction and a model-based scatter correction in 2D and 3D respectively. All WB images were attenuation corrected using segmented transmission scans. Images were blindly assessed by three observers for the presence of artefacts, confidence in lesion detection and overall image quality using a scoring system.

Results

Statistically significant differences between 2D and 3D image quality were only obtained for 3D emission acquisitions of 3 min. No statistically significant differences were observed for image artefacts or lesion detectability scores. Image quality correlated significantly with patient weight for both modes of operation. Finally, no differences were seen in image artefact scores for the different axial slice overlaps considered, suggesting the use of five slice overlaps in 3D WB acquisitions.

Conclusion

3D WB imaging using a dedicated BGO-based PET scanner offers similar image quality to that obtained in 2D considering similar overall times of acquisitions.
Literature
1.
Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncol 2001;2(3):157–64.
2.
Visvikis D, Turzo A, Bizais Y, Cheze-Le Rest C. Technology related parameters affecting quantification in positron emission tomography imaging. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25:637–41.
3.
Bendriem B, Townsend TW. The theory and practice of 3D PET. Kluwer Academic 1998.
4.
Badawi RD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, Sutcliffe JL, Maisey MN. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates in 3D PET. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:1755–76.
5.
Lartizien C, Comtat C, Kinahan PE, Ferreira N, Bendriem B, Trebossen R. Optimisation of injected dose based on noise equivalent count rates for 2- and 3-dimensional whole body PET. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1268–78.
6.
Bettinardi V, Danna M, Savi A, Lecchi M, Castiglioni I, Gilardi MC et al. Performance evaluation of the new whole body PET/CT scanner: discovery ST. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(6):867–81.
7.
Lartizien C, Kinahan PE, Comtat C. A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole body PET imaging protocols. J Nucl Med 2004;45(4):714–23.
8.
Visvikis D, Griffiths D, Costa DC, Ell PJ. Comparison of clinical 2D and 3D PET imaging using a BGO based dedicated system (abstract). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(S2):S331.
9.
Lodge MA, Lowe J, Lowe G, et al. A comparison of 2D and 3D PET images using an interleaved septa-in/septa-out acquisition protocol (abstract). J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):206P.
10.
Raylman RR, Kison PV, Wahl RL. Capabilities of two- and three-dimensional FDG-PET for detecting small lesions and lymph nodes in the upper torso: a dynamic phantom study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:39–45.
11.
Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Quon A, Schiepers C, Waldherr C, Silverman DH. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med 2004;45:797–801.
12.
Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, Muylle K, Caveliers V, Bossuyt A. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1615–9.
13.
Visvikis D, Cheze-LeRest C, Costa DC, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, Ell PJ. Influence of OSEM and segmented attenuation correction in the calculation of standardised uptake values for 18FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1326–35.
14.
Stearns CW, Fessler JA. 3D PET reconstruction with FORE and WLS-OS-EM. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:912–5.
15.
Bergstrom M, Eriksson L, Bohm C, Blomqvist G, Litton J. Correction for scattered radiation in a ring detector positron camera by integral transformation of the projections. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1983;7(1):42–50.
16.
Wollenweber SD. Parameterisation of a model based 3D PET scatter correction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2002;49:722–7.
17.
Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer S, Stearns CW. Comparison of NEC and subjective image quality measures in 2D and 3D whole body PET imaging. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;3:1393–6.
18.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.
19.
Chiang S, Cardi C, Matej S, Zhuang H, Newberg A, Alavi A. Clinical validation of fully 3D versus 2.5D RAMLA reconstruction on the Philips-ADAC CPET PET scanner. Nucl Med Comm 2004;25:1103–7.
20.
El Fakhri G, Holdsworth C, Badawi RD, Santos PA, Moore SC, Van den Abbeele AD. Impact of acquisition geometry and patient habitus on lesion detectability in whole body FDG-PET: a channelised hotelling observer study. IEEE Med Imaging Conf Rec 2002;2:1402–5.
21.
Kadrmas DJ, Christian PE, Wollenweber SD, Kohlmyer SG, Stearns CW. Comparative evaluation of 2D and 3D lesion detectability on a full-ring BGO PET scanner. J Nucl Med 2002;43(Suppl):204P.
Metadata
Title
Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner
Authors
D. Visvikis
D. Griffiths
D. C. Costa
J. Bomanji
P. J. Ell
Publication date
01-09-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 9/2005
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-1809-9

Other articles of this Issue 9/2005

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 9/2005 Go to the issue

Original Article

Non-visualization of sentinel lymph nodes in penile carcinoma

Molecular Imaging

Non-invasive imaging of cardiac transgene expression with PET: comparison of the human sodium/iodide symporter gene and HSV1-tk as the reporter gene

Original Article

O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine PET for monitoring the effects of convection-enhanced delivery of paclitaxel in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

Editorial

Tracer development and hybrid imaging

Original Article

Validation of brain tumour imaging with p-[123I]iodo-l-phenylalanine and SPECT

Image of the Month

Visualisation of a somatostatin receptor-expressing tumour with 67Ga-DOTATOC SPECT